<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: [arin-ppml] Curious about consensus</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>There are many things that people may do....doesn't mean it's the right thing, or that the practice might not be ultimately 'legislated' against....or for. Time will tell. The 'good' if not culturally decided is legislated.<BR>
Only the last judge decides.<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of Milton L Mueller<BR>
Sent: Tue 4/26/2011 6:26 PM<BR>
To: Leo Bicknell; arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Curious about consensus<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> 2008-2 required a transferor to sign an RSA or LRSA _before_ they could<BR>
> release the block to ARIN for transfer. The presumption is that the<BR>
> receiver wanted a legitimate, recognized by ARIN block and thus the<BR>
> transferor had incentive to sign an RSA or LRSA first.<BR>
<BR>
[Milton L Mueller]<BR>
<BR>
But this is precisely my point. Everything you say here and below seems to be founded on the assumption that a transferor requires ARIN's pre-approval. Nortel has just blown that assumption out of the water. The fact that it is under bankruptcy court may strengthen its resolve not to be bothered with a transfer agreement involving ARIN, but I see no reason why _any_ legacy holder couldn't do the same thing.<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
PPML<BR>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<BR>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>
Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>